Ron Paul
Quote: bigfoot66Ron Paul 2012!
Isn't Ron Paul in a retirement home or something? I saw
him on TV and he looks like he retired in 1989..
Quote: EvenBobIsn't Ron Paul in a retirement home or something? I saw
him on TV and he looks like he retired in 1989..
Ron Paul is a wonderful, principled man and I am so proud to support him. In fact I will be voting for him in less than 2 hours, I am very excited.
As you have hit upon here, people tend to judge politicians on the way they look and carry themselves rather than their positions or integrity.
But once you reject their positions, isn't it then okay to make fun of the way they look and carry themselves? Because these days, I hear and see a lot about that tall skinny big eared guy with the funny sounding name who is in the White House at the moment despite him being born in Kenya and all that.Quote: bigfoot66As you have hit upon here, people tend to judge politicians on the way they look and carry themselves rather than their positions or integrity.
Quote: s2dbakerBut once you reject their positions, isn't it then okay to make fun of the way they look and carry themselves? Because these days, I hear and see a lot about that tall skinny big eared guy with the funny sounding name who is in the White House at the moment despite him being born in Kenya and all that.
I am a libertarian, do you really think that I am going to tell you that something is not ok? ;) Obama was elected on a rockstar platform, though, so it is a bit more relevant though when he loses his rockstar appeal.
Quote: QuadDeucesRon Paul's position is for freedom in America. I hope nobody here has rejected that position.
Exactly!
I don't agree with Paul on everything, but Paul's platform is simple - FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, and preserve Liberty. Paul is very Libertarian leaning, for sure, but in his personal life he's very conservative. The difference between him and most of his fellow Republicans is that he doesn't want to use the arm of government to enforce a conservative lifestyle onto YOU. I don't see how you could possibly reject his platform as a whole, (especially because he's been ridiculously accurate predicting economic bubbles, and up until recently, everyone thought he was a nutjob, yet everything he predicted happened.) but I do see how plenty of people could disagree with certain positions he holds.
There is plenty of things in the Constitution that Libertarians disagree with, or at least that I disagree with, and I consider myself a Conservative and Libertarian. But that is the Supreme Law of the land.
What's silly about people making fun of his age is that he's in better health than most of his younger colleagues. When asked about how his age would affect his ability to govern, he challenged the other candidates to a 25 mile bike ride. With the exception of (at the time) Rick Perry, I doubt anyone else in the field would have been able to do a 25 mile bike ride, I know I'd get pooped out. It's basically an irrevlevent criticism of him. Although, yes, unless some crazy upset happens in Tampa, he will retire, and he deserves to be able to retire.
Gary Johnson 2012!
That's everyone's position. It's the libertarian positions that will make America less free that people reject.Quote: QuadDeucesRon Paul's position is for freedom in America. I hope nobody here has rejected that position.
Actually, he's all for using big government to regulate a woman's uterus.Quote: Boney526The difference between him and most of his fellow Republicans is that he doesn't want to use the arm of government to enforce a conservative lifestyle onto YOU.
Quote: s2dbakerThat's everyone's position. It's the libertarian positions that will make America less free that people reject.Actually, he's all for using big government to regulate a woman's uterus.
That's BS rhetoric.
That's the protection of a human fetus' right to life. Agree or disagree with his position on abortion, that clearly constitutes an acceptable use of government if you accept the fetus as a living person. That's almost like saying, "actually, he's all for using government to regulate a person's organs" if he's against allowing people to shoot each other (because your body has organs, and the bullets would harm them). That's a logical fallacy because it's not about the woman's uterus, it's about the life inside that uterus. And we have the god given right to life. You've basically bastardized his argument.
Like I said, though, he's very libertarian leaning, but he's a conservative. Libertarians disagree on this issue, with more right leaning libertarians generally leaning pro-life and more left leaning libertarians leaning pro-choice.
Quote: s2dbakerThat's everyone's position. It's the libertarian positions that will make America less free that people reject. Actually, he's all for using big government to regulate a woman's uterus.
The discussion is whether or not life begins at conception (or at what point it does begin at). We pro-lifers are simply extending the right of life to those that cannot speak for themselves - to flat out state that our side is acting in a draconian way is disingenuous and ignorant of the decades-long discussion. I understand where pro-abortion people are coming from, I just believe that their core concept (that a fetus is not a human life) is wrong.
To be completely honest I can't answer the question of whether or not a fetus is a life with 100% certainty. In twenty years if I decide that it is not, then I can switch my political views. On the other hand, if I was pro-abortion for the first 40-50 years of my life and decide that it is in fact murder... de facto supporting the murder of (currently) 50+ million since 1973... that's not something I could live with.
I agree with Ron Paul on about 2/3 of the issues, but the final third is just too dangerous to put in his hands.
Now look who's talking BS rhetoric. I thought the Paulpeople were all about the Constitution. Well, guess who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. You don't have to guess if you've read it. It's the Supreme court. Until the court changes its mind, the Constitution says that abortions are legal. On this position, Ron Paul is a fraud.Quote: Boney526That's BS rhetoric.
That's the protection of a human fetus' right to life. Agree or disagree with his position on abortion, that clearly constitutes an acceptable use of government if you accept the fetus as a living person. That's almost like saying, "actually, he's all for using government to regulate a person's organs" if he's against allowing people to shoot each other (because your body has organs, and the bullets would harm them). That's a logical fallacy because it's not about the woman's uterus, it's about the life inside that uterus. And we have the god given right to life. You've basically bastardized his argument.
Like I said, though, he's very libertarian leaning, but he's a conservative. Libertarians disagree on this issue, with more right leaning libertarians generally leaning pro-life and more left leaning libertarians leaning pro-choice.
Quote: s2dbakerNow look who's talking BS rhetoric. I thought the Paulpeople were all about the Constitution. Well, guess who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. You don't have to guess if you've read it. It's the Supreme court. Until the court changes its mind, the Constitution says that abortions are legal. On this position, Ron Paul is a fraud.
The Supreme Court isn't necessarily the final arbiter of the Constitution, at least not according to Thomas Jefferson, and the States' Rights Doctrine. It's also questionable how far the Founders intended the Court's power to go, but anyway, you are being ridiculous. I didn't even say I agreed with him, but I said that you're not even listening to what his argument is, you're just saying it's wrong and that's that. His argument is about protecting life, not regulating women. He's not for banning birth control or anything like that, he's just pro-life. I guess that makes him "a fraud."
And the Supreme Court's decision in the past doesn't prevent the Constitution from being changed, and it doesn't prevent the Court in the future from reversing it's decision.
under 80 who can actually get elected. Soon Ron
Paul will start to look 96 to them too, like he does to the
rest of us.
Quote: EvenBobLibertarians really need to come up with somebody
under 80 who can actually get elected. Soon Ron
Paul will start to look 96 to them too, like he does to the
rest of us.
This election was the final hurrah for RP. He's not running for reelection to the Congress this fall, and after the GOP convention is done he'll walk into the sunset...
I'd guess that Rand will pick up the standard at that point, but unfortunately he doesn't have the same name recognition yet.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis election was the final hurrah for RP. He's not running for reelection to the Congress this fall, .
But but he's so dang young for his age (92) and so full
of pep and energy, he's as healthy as men half his age!
Actually, he's as healthy as he tells you he is, which is
meaningless. You think he's going to admit he feels like
shit and is tired all the time?
Quote: s2dbakerNow look who's talking BS rhetoric. I thought the Paulpeople were all about the Constitution. Well, guess who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. You don't have to guess if you've read it. It's the Supreme court. Until the court changes its mind, the Constitution says that abortions are legal. On this position, Ron Paul is a fraud.
A Fraud? Well I know most people don't agree with Dr. Paul, but this is honestly the first time in the years I have been a vocal supporter (5) that someone has questioned his integrity and I am a bit suprised. Ron Paul defended legalizing heroine and prostitution at a nationally televised debate in South Carolina, and you think the man does not honestly believe every word that he says?
You are right about the Constitution, it gave appealate authority to the supreme court, so what ever they say goes as per the Constitution. This has an interesting effect that you have identified in your post, that the constitution changes without changing. When the court changes its position on something, the constitution changes even though not one word of the constitution has changed.
Now if the words of the constitution say x=1, and the supreme court rules that the constitution say x=2, then we can have a reasonable debate about that decision, no? A lot of us feel that the plain language of the Constitution would seem to imply a much more limited government than the leviathan we currently are enslaved to. This is what we are talking about when we mention 'following the Constitution'.
Furthermore let me clarify Dr. Paul's position on abortion. He believes that abortion is a violent act. Like murder, assualt, etc, criminal law exists to deal with violent acts and is handled at the state level. Just like we do not need a federal law against murder, we do not need a federal law against abortion and he does not support them. There are pro life groups that target him http://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion . He supports state laws to make abortion illegal, but it makes no difference as he has never held or sought a state level office. So, actually, you are wrong across the board on your accusation here.
Quote: AcesAndEightsThis election was the final hurrah for RP. He's not running for reelection to the Congress this fall, and after the GOP convention is done he'll walk into the sunset...
I'd guess that Rand will pick up the standard at that point, but unfortunately he doesn't have the same name recognition yet.
It seems that that is close to the plan. Rand isn't exactly like Ron, they actually have major policy disagreements. Rand Paul is very Libertarian-Leaning, though. I like him, but I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters don't like his son anywhere near as much. Maybe it's because Ron is more old-fashioned, "polite" about his conservatism, and Rand is more in your face (making pretty funny - or offensive, depending on your taste - jokes you wouldn't expect from a Senator) about his Right wing libertarianism.
The Paul campaign has actively supporter other members, and people running, though.
Quote: bigfoot66Rand is also a bit less committed to 100% libertarian purity, noticed that he just endorsed Willard Romney, a move dad would never make.
Really, that makes me sad. Of course, last election season, Ron Paul actually endorsed Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party, which was just ridiculous. (Look it up if your curious, but the Constitution party is nothing like the libertarians, their ideas are very authoritarian in nature.) He didn't endorse Bob Barr (running for the Libertarian party) due to some political scuffle they had. Kind of pissed me off as RP is generally more genuine and anti-politician BS than most politicians.
That said, the federal reserve is a system that inflates away the value of our money. This is a form of theft (some call it taxation).
Some people on this board are likely old enough to have lived through price controls and they have seen the chaos that it causes. The Fed manipulates interest rates. The interest rate is the price of money over time and it serves to coordinate production over time in a free market. Manipulating interest rates is even more damaging than manipulating the prices of goods or services.
Since this is a Vegas forum I will use the example of a multi-billion dollar strip resort, such as City Center, Echelon, Wynncore, etc. I am not familiar with the details how the Wynn was built but will make up a reasonable senario to illustrate the point. Mr Wynn wants to spend $3 billion to build his resorts. He has to borrow money to make this happen and has a 20 year financing plan. Borrowing this much money over this period of time means that even small changes in the interest rate causes very large changes in the cost of the project after 20 years of borrowing funds. Can you imagine how risky it is to build City Center if the interest rate is 20%? The problem is especially compounded on long term projects like huge resorts where you are repaying the money over decades. If the Fed sets the interest rate too high, then the cost of financing huge resorts becomes too high and there are too few.
On the other hand, if the Fed sets interest rates too low, then too many of them are built (or at least started...) because of the discount. During a boom period of artificially low interest rates, a lot of big resorts were started. Eventually, the over investment becomes obvious and a lot of projects are simply abandoned as it becomes clear the growth was unsustainable.
This is why fixing interest rates causes economic problems, it steers resources into the wrong investments.
Quote: vert12762 things that make it impossible for me to vote for Ron Paul are.......1) he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve.....2)He wants to get rid of fiat currency and go back to a true gold standard
For the record, he does not advocate returning to a gold standard, though I understand why you might think that he does. He argues that we should be free to use whatever currency we want to, but gold has historically been chosen to serve as money.
Quote: bigfoot66While we believe the fed should be abolished, Dr Paul has merely proposed that legal tender laws be repealed. You think the dollar is wonderful , I don't, and that's ok. What's not ok is that it is illegal to use a competing currency. Google "liberty dollar". Even the most Keynesian of us has to think it is wrong to jail a man for using the money of his choice.
That said, the federal reserve is a system that inflates away the value of our money. This is a form of theft (some call it taxation).
Some people on this board are likely old enough to have lived through price controls and they have seen the chaos that it causes. The Fed manipulates interest rates. The interest rate is the price of money over time and it serves to coordinate production over time in a free market. Manipulating interest rates is even more damaging than manipulating the prices of goods or services.
Since this is a Vegas forum I will use the example of a multi-billion dollar strip resort, such as City Center, Echelon, Wynncore, etc. I am not familiar with the details how the Wynn was built but will make up a reasonable senario to illustrate the point. Mr Wynn wants to spend $3 billion to build his resorts. He has to borrow money to make this happen and has a 20 year financing plan. Borrowing this much money over this period of time means that even small changes in the interest rate causes very large changes in the cost of the project after 20 years of borrowing funds. Can you imagine how risky it is to build City Center if the interest rate is 20%? The problem is especially compounded on long term projects like huge resorts where you are repaying the money over decades. If the Fed sets the interest rate too high, then the cost of financing huge resorts becomes too high and there are too few.
On the other hand, if the Fed sets interest rates too low, then too many of them are built (or at least started...) because of the discount. During a boom period of artificially low interest rates, a lot of big resorts were started. Eventually, the over investment becomes obvious and a lot of projects are simply abandoned as it becomes clear the growth was unsustainable.
This is why fixing interest rates causes economic problems, it steers resources into the wrong investments.
The Fed doesn't "set" the prime rate, the market does
Quote: vert1276The Fed doesn't "set" the prime rate, the market does
Same difference. The Fed sets the discount rate upon which all other rates are set.
Quote: vert1276The Fed doesn't "set" the prime rate, the market does
They do not 'set' commercial interest rates per say. I was trying to be very simple to explain Austrain business cycle theory. Surely you are not denying that they have a heavy influence on interet rates. Are you just trying to point out that I made a small technical error in my explanation?
Quote: NareedSame difference. The Fed sets the discount rate upon which all other rates are set.
how do you figure that?
Quote: bigfoot66They do not 'set' commercial interest rates per say. I was trying to be very simple to explain Austrain business cycle theory. Surely you are not denying that they have a heavy influence on interet rates. Are you just trying to point out that I made a small technical error in my explanation?
I don't think they have a "heavy" influence on setting the prime rate.....Of course they "set"(for lack of a better word) the federal funds rate and the discount rate....I can say the discount rate has NOTHING to do with the prime rate....A small case could be made for the federal funds rate having some effect on the prime rate since the federal funds rate in manipulated by the Fed by increasing and decrease bank liquidity...But the two are not linked.....Just because one falls or increases doesn't mean the other will....Risk and inflation have much more to do with where the prime rate will "land" than what the Fed does with the federal funds rate
http://www.lendingtree.com/mortgage-loans/advice/getting-the-best-loan/affect-of-fed-on-interest-rates/
Quote:By influencing the federal funds rate, the Fed can impact consumer interest rates charged by banks on all types of loans, from car loans to credit cards. Generally, when the Fed raises rates, your cost to borrow money goes up. This affects many consumers directly, as interest rates on credit cards and home equity lines of credit are not usually “fixed” like a mortgage, and thus the rate can increase or decrease along with the Fed’s actions.
The way this website puts it is very concise and accurate. BTW you are absolutely right that risk and inflation are important factors as well.
Will you admit, at least, that you were wrong when you claimed that he advocates returning to the gold standard?
Quote: bigfoot66Anyone care to retract false claims made in this thread?
I assume you are talking to me?
First Ron Paul is in favor of a gold standard.....This is not even debatable. He is NOT in favor of the gold standard of the 19th century run by the Fed, known as the "Bretton Woods gold standard" were it still allowed the Fed to dictate monetary policy because the dollar was only fractionally backed by gold. the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold. Paul often says "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." Basically saying he is not in favor of the Bretton Woods gold standard.....Ron Paul position now is "moving forward to a NEW gold standard" He recently spoke about this "new gold standard" with Lewis Lehrman. They both sat on the U.S. Gold Commission in 1981...and even co-authored a book together called "The Case for Gold"....Paul is for a "true gold standard" where the price of gold is not set by the Treasury/Federal reserve... But for people to try and spin Paul's position into not being in favor of the gold standard because he said, "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." is laughable....The man is anti Fiat currency and in favor of a commodity based currency controlled by the free market, and the commodity of choice for Paul is GOLD....
As to your other post about how The Federal funds rate effects the Prime rate....I said a case could be made that it does...Obviously when you add liquidity to the banking system The prime rate MAY Fall. But like I said the two are NOT linked. There are many more factors to the prime rate. There was far more bank liquidity in 2006 then now and the prime rate was over 8% in 2006, and now it is just over 3% Trying to link the two is a fallacy.....The rate the Fed WANTS banks to loan to each other at(the Federal funds rate) is NOT linked the rate banks loans to "creditworthy Costumers" at(the prime rate)
Quote: vert1276First Ron Paul is in favor of a gold standard.....This is not even debatable. He is NOT in favor of the gold standard of the 19th century run by the Fed, known as the "Bretton Woods gold standard" were it still allowed the Fed to dictate monetary policy because the dollar was only fractionally backed by gold. the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold. Paul often says "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." Basically saying he is not in favor of the Bretton Woods gold standard.....Ron Paul position now is "moving forward to a NEW gold standard" He recently spoke about this "new gold standard" with Lewis Lehrman. They both sat on the U.S. Gold Commission in 1981...and even co-authored a book together called "The Case for Gold"....Paul is for a "true gold standard" where the price of gold is not set by the Treasury/Federal reserve... But for people to try and spin Paul's position into not being in favor of the gold standard because he said, "I wouldn't exactly go back to the gold standard, there were shortcomings with the gold standard of the nineteenth century because...it was a fixed price..." is laughable....The man is anti Fiat currency and in favor of a commodity based currency controlled by the free market, and the commodity of choice for Paul is GOLD....
This is partially true. He believes in the gold standard, yes, but he does not adovate a return to it as you noted. I am a huge Ron Paul guy and started a RP organization 4 years ago. As I already pointed out, he simply advocates repealing legal tender laws and auditing the federal reserve. Though he would ultimately like to see the Fed abolished, that is not the policy he is advocating directly. Again, he is not in favor of gold per say, but of the market choosing the commodity, and precious metals have historically been the choice of the market.
As for the other issue, I am frankly blown away by some of your claims. What is the point of changing the federal funds rate if it does not ultimately manipulate commercial interest rates and thus the economy?
We always hear that about how "the fed has lowered rates to stimulate growth" in the media (though not lately), how does the fed manipulate the economy if not through having an effect on comercial interest rates?
Quote: vert1276the government was the only one who could own gold, and they set the price of gold.
Am I missing something? I could be wrong here, but I thought the government and banks issued gold coins for circulation at one point, no? you said it was illegal to own gold, in the 19th century, I thought that was not the case until Roosevelt stole all the gold...? Isnt the whole point of the gold standard that you can redeem the piece of paper and be paid in commodity?
Quote: bigfoot66Am I missing something? I could be wrong here, but I thought the government and banks issued gold coins for circulation at one point, no? you said it was illegal to own gold, in the 19th century, I thought that was not the case until Roosevelt stole all the gold...? Isnt the whole point of the gold standard that you can redeem the piece of paper and be paid in commodity?
Under the Bretton Woods Gold standard it was illegal to own gold for investment purposes....You could own jewelry of course(because that has value added to it) and you could own coins(because that has value added) But you couldn't own gold as an investment like today. You couldn't own 20 1oz bars of gold like today, It was against the law to do so....Gold mines could not even keep their gold....after mining it they had to hand it over to the US treasury and they would be issued a certificate they would then take to the bank for them to issue them notes(money) for it....I think the limit you could own for "investment purposes" was 5 Oz or less......This is the whole point of the James Bond movie Goldfinger....Goldfinger was illegally stockpiling gold....This is why James Bond tries to set him up on the golf course and tries to get him to buy the bar of gold....because that would have been illegal in the 1960's(I guess this only makes sense if you have seen that movie lol)...SO to make a long story shot from 1933 till 1974 the era known as the "Bretton Woods system (which was a type of gold standard)" it was illegal to own gold for investment purposes...
AS to your question form the post above prime rates and Federal funds rates.....I don't think you understand fully how the Federal Reserve works.....When you hear "the Fed is lowing interest rates" they are talking about The Federal Funds rate NOT The prime rate.....The two are completely different...the two may have affect on each other but the two are not linked... I will PM you a link to another forum where I laid this out for someone else like yourself.....I have been in the Banking industry my whole adult career and even briefly worked at the Federal Reserve.....I think you just have some misconceptions about how The Fed works and what it does....
Abortion: Supreme Court can be overruled by a 39-state vote "Constitutional Amendment". OT: one can conclude that with 39 state-votes AGAINST, by de-facto law, that same-sex marriages remain outlawed in the Constitutional sense. /OT HOWEVER, The Constitutional Amendment must be voted upon by the vote-eligible population at large. If the Amendment passes (simple majority) in 39 states/protectorates/districts, then the Amendment passes. AFAIK, this is the check and balance to the Supreme Court. All Ron Paul can do as President is muster a ballot in all voting "states" for Amendment, an empty-suit position at best.
Nay, sez, I, none of the above candidates for President, gimme three others,
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King.
I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman.
What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
and this:
"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions".
and this:
"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society,
were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities".
and this:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,
I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Well, I'd just say that you I take him at his word that he didn't know, since it seems so inconsistent with everything I've ever heard him say.
I guess I can see it if you don't believe him, but based upon everything I actually know, it seems highly improbable that he'd say something like that. The worst thing I've heard him say was "he's a queer" after (I think it was for Bruno) some fake news reporter lured him into a hotel room and took his pants off, while hitting on him.
I'm pretty sure, though, that in that scenario many of us would act far less proper.
Most people in office who have these prejudiced at some point screw up big time and get caught SAYING something like that on tape. Seeing as how that's never happened, and how the one time it was close, he acted far more proper than people I don't consider to be intolerant would, I'd say that him being a closet racist or bigot is highly, highly, unlikely.
i guess it takes a special man to say "the buck stops here".
That's all I'm saying. I believe he made a mistake of not using enough oversight. I don't think he wrote that himself. If he did, it would be completely out of character.
point he just deletes his posts so I won't bother. Vert I will defer
to you on the MECHANICS of how the federal reserve bankers
work their magic. How about this claim:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market
Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money
Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the
Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a
100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
Quote: Boney526I have a hard time believing he knew they were in there.
That's all I'm saying. I believe he made a mistake of not using enough oversight. I don't think he wrote that himself. If he did, it would be completely out of character.
Absolutely. Besides he claims he didn't know they were in there,
Disowned the statements, says that he never felt that way, and
Has accepted moral responsibility for the statements. Besides
That, there are a few newsletters with a few ugly statements
And then he has his 35 year political career where he has said
The same things over and over and he has not to my knowledge
Ever made a bigoted statement, so it is completely out of
character. If a man apologizes and disowns a
Statement, and in fact denies making it, it is unfair to portray
It the way Wongbo did. Shame on you.
Quote: bigfoot66I would reply to wongbo but whenever someone makes a decent
point he just deletes his posts so I won't bother. Vert I will defer
to you on the MECHANICS of how the federal reserve bankers
work their magic. How about this claim:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market
Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money
Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the
Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a
100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
that toothpaste is already out of the tube. There is no putting it back in.....Unless you want to take 8 trillion out of the US money supply(M2).
Quote: vert1276Quote: bigfoot66I would reply to wongbo but whenever someone makes a decent
point he just deletes his posts so I won't bother. Vert I will defer
to you on the MECHANICS of how the federal reserve bankers
work their magic. How about this claim:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market
Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money
Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the
Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a
100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
that toothpaste is already out of the tube. There is no putting it back in.....Unless you want to take 8 trillion out of the US money supply(M2).
But that doesn't invalidate his point. Nobodies talking about taking all the money back and starting a new gold standard immediately (very few people, at least.) Legalizing competition in currency, though, would not be the worst thing in the world where the dollar loses significant value to inflation yearly.
Quote: Boney526Quote: vert1276Quote: bigfoot66I would reply to wongbo but whenever someone makes a decent
point he just deletes his posts so I won't bother. Vert I will defer
to you on the MECHANICS of how the federal reserve bankers
work their magic. How about this claim:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market
Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money
Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the
Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a
100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
that toothpaste is already out of the tube. There is no putting it back in.....Unless you want to take 8 trillion out of the US money supply(M2).
But that doesn't invalidate his point. Nobodies talking about taking all the money back and starting a new gold standard immediately (very few people, at least.) Legalizing competition in currency, though, would not be the worst thing in the world where the dollar loses significant value to inflation yearly.
well the gold standard and fractional reserve banking are unrelated....Even if we went with a true gold standard, I'm assuming we would still have fractional reserve banking.....Otherwise The credit markets will pretty much be none existent....
Secondly...you would still have inflation and deflation while on the gold standard....and the swings could be much larger then they are now with a floating fiat currency....
Quote: buzzpaffIn 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
I understand why you would interpret this as bigoted Buzz and I will even give you that if he were to introduce a bill like that tomorrow I would be a bit confused that he would use his time that way. However, there is another way to look at it and I hope you will keep an open mind as I try to explain it.
I am not familiar with the bill, but based on what you said, it does not limit anyone's freedom, it "Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds...".
As libertarians, we believe that there are good things that the government should not do: for example food stamps. Feeding the hungry is a wonderful thing, but it is not the role of the federal government.
Homosexuality was viewed very different 32 years ago than it is today, and it is wonderful that, over time, people have begun to become more tolerant. However, the constitution does not authorize congress to tax people in order to engage in social engineering. Taxation is a form of theft, and it is not right to steal someone's money and then use it to try to change his mind on an issue. If you want to change hearts and minds on an issue where society has bigoted views, I support you 100%. But it is immoral to take money out of my wallet and against my will to fund your operation.
That said, I will give you that the way homosexuals were treated 32 years ago was often wrong. Buzz even within the moral framework that I have laid out, I can understand that you would think it petty or suspect that he would choose homosexuality to go after even though his proposal was perfectly moral as I have laid out above. All I can say is that he was representing a pretty conservative district and even the great Ron Paul has to play the political game a little bit.
Quote: WongBo
You are a very little man Wongbo. I have tried many times to engage you in an intellectually honest manner but you are more interested in trolling. Well, you have succeeded in upsetting me without making any real points. Again. Congratulations.
Quote: vert1276that toothpaste is already out of the tube. There is no putting it back in.....Unless you want to take 8 trillion out of the US money supply(M2).
OK you claimed that the Fed does not control interest rates, I agreed that you were technically correct but that the fed has a very strong influence on rates. You debated that point as well so I made this statement:
The federal reserve and member banks through open market Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a 100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.
You jumped immediately to the fact that fractional reserve banking is next to impossible to abolish. I agree. But set aside policy for a minute man, I am trying to understand your point about the Fed. In what way is my analysis incorrect, or what am I missing here?
